Originally Posted by sekin67835 (Post 8568974)

In what circumstances do these charges apply?

The criminal provisions apply if you were in “care and control” of a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.
Thus if Bob decides to sleep off the booze he drank the night before in his car, he must ensure that he does not have the keys on his person or he may be charged with an offence.

Originally Posted by ancient_510 (Post 8569004)

May or may not be exactly correct.

R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706

[50]A person occupying the driver's seat of a motor vehicle is presumed to have care or control of that vehicle unless that person establishes that he or she does not occupy that seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.

[51] A person who satisfies the court that he or she had no intention to set the vehicle in motion will not necessarily escape conviction: an inebriated individual who is found behind the wheel and has a present ability to set the vehicle in motion, without intending at that moment to do so , may nevertheless present a realistic risk of danger to persons or property. The risk of danger must be realistic and not just theoretically possible. But nor need the risk be probable, or even serious or substantial.

It is reasonable to conclude that if you can effectively demonstrate to the court that your only intent was to operate the heater or the radio or the door, you had no intent to set the vehicle in motion. Therefore "care or control", within the meaning of section 253(1) of the Criminal Code, would not apply.

Originally Posted by sekin67835 (Post 8569008)

Isn't that the prosecutors job to show evidence that you are using the car other than to operate the heater or the radio?

Originally Posted by ancient_510 (Post 8569004)

To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.

Originally Posted by Spidey (Post 8568961)

you are reading your Ipad at a red light... you obviously are not focused on anything else but the screen of your electronic device. The light turns green you take your eyes off the ipad, take your foot off the brake, and hit the gas. OOPS didn't see that pedestrian running across trying to beat the light... OR didn't see the car that just tried to beat its red light. BOOM. In those two incidents, was it your "fault". Probably not since you had the green light, but if you weren't "distracted", you would have seen the incidents unfolding before you.

Originally Posted by sekin67835 (Post 8568974)

You are right,

In what circumstances do these charges apply?

The criminal provisions apply if you were in “care and control” of a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.
Thus if Bob decides to sleep off the booze he drank the night before in his car, he must ensure that he does not have the keys on his person or he may be charged with an offence.

BC Criminal Defence Law Firm Article: | Dykstra & Company

Now, If I hadn't done some googling, I didn't know that sitting in a driver seat with keys in your pocket can land you in jail while intoxicated. My question would be do you know how many drivers know about control and care law? Now of course ignorance doesn't justify breaking the law, but a DUI can change a person's life. Now in the learners book page 103 (icbc website) describes alcohol impairment. But no where in the book does it touch on sleeping in the driver seat. It is not a stretch to conclude that an average driver would know about this law.

Originally Posted by Spidey (Post 8568961)

His reply was to you not thinking being stopped at a red light, with your car running, and foot on your brake pedal (the only thing stopping your car from going forward) can be affected by being "distracted" or the possibility of being distracted when at a stand still.

I will give you a couple of examples which "distraction" at a red light or stand still can be "dangerous". You may question the chances of these things happen, but they COULD an they HAVE. And like I said before, laws are placed to prevent incidents that could and have happened.

-you are reading your Ipad at a red light... you obviously are not focused on anything else but the screen of your electronic device. The light turns green you take your eyes off the ipad, take your foot off the brake, and hit the gas. OOPS didn't see that pedestrian running across trying to beat the light... OR didn't see the car that just tried to beat its red light. BOOM. In those two incidents, was it your "fault". Probably not since you had the green light, but if you weren't "distracted", you would have seen the incidents unfolding before you.

It is the duty of all drivers on the road to be aware of their environment and surroundings. Everyone learned about defensive driving when they got their licences. No one ever gets behind the wheel and thinks they are going to get into an accident. No one ever texts and drives thinking THEY will get into an accident. No one ever drinks and drives and thinks THEY will get into an accident. Because they are "better" than everyone else and nothing can happen to THEM.

There is a reason why impaired driving and electronic device laws were created. Because it is an issue.

Not even going to bother replying to Sebberry. I think I have said that before?:suspicious: I will let the local Police on the Island put up with him.

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569145)

How does the "device" come into play here?
If you're the sort of person to hit the gas for a light that's just turned green without checking the crosswalks and intersection, then you shouldn't be driving.

It doesn't matter if you're reading a message on a phone, taking a sip of coffee of reading directions from a paper note, you do your checks to ensure it's safe to proceed before you move.

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569151)

I'm not sure by what you mean about having the police on the island "put up with me".

The only interaction I've ever had with a police officer (aside being allowed to proceed through roadblocks) was when I had someone try to use a fake credit card in my store.

Care to answer my question?

Or how about this... a media player playing music through the car's speakers must be securely mounted to the dash. How does not having it secured to the dash constitute distracted driving?

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569162)

Translation: I don't have a good explanation for why the regs are the way they are.

Originally Posted by Spidey (Post 8569146)

If the keys are in the ignition, it's pretty slam dunk.

Originally Posted by Spidey (Post 8569164)

Why are you asking police officers why laws implemented by the government are the way they are? How am I supposed to read the minds of the government and answer your questions for them. I can have an idea and why I PERSONALLY think through COMMON sense why some laws are in place, but there's no way I can say that WHY the way it is.

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569180)

While you're not directly involved in drafting the legislation, it is your discretion whether to charge a driver depending on the circumstance. So based on that I'd say your opinion and justifications certainly do matter.

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569226)

You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569226)

You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.

Originally Posted by Spidey (Post 8569396)

IRSU. Integrated road safety unit....... How dare these police officers (working in a specialized unit/ section specifically focussed on traffic infractions) have the nerve to do their job! Shouldn't they be doing solving murders or something???

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569414)

Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!

Originally Posted by nma (Post 8569438)

If officers were replaced by robots there would be thousands of tickets handed out on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569448)

And therein lies the problem. If the laws are set up such that the reasonable and safe actions of the majority of motorists are punishable offences, then the laws go too far.

Yet robots are pretty much how units like IRSU operates. Set up for maximum enforcement regardless of the actual risk.

Originally Posted by ancient_510 (Post 8569178)

Except in the case I cited: R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706
Ngo Tran was found in the drivers seat, dead asleep... with the engine running and the keys in the ignition.
He was ultimatley found not guilty after being charged with having the care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug.

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569414)

Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!

Originally Posted by r1237h (Post 8567105)

But let's not pretend that this is not petty nick-picking just to fill a quota, ok?

Originally Posted by r1237h (Post 8567344)

Two points. First, this happened at a red light, not while driving.

Originally Posted by r1237h (Post 8567344)

Second,ambulances have this thingee called a siren which manages to draw the attention of drivers in the area. At least here in the Tri-city area, and also in New York City, where I drove one for 5 years.

Originally Posted by r1237h (Post 8567697)

Almost as well known as the good ol "I haven't bothered to read the thread, and am therefore speaking out of my ass" deal, eh?

Originally Posted by r1237h (Post 8568529)

In the cave I live in, it is not known to all that standing at a red light and not moving is considered operating a vehicle.

Originally Posted by r1237h (Post 8568529)

In addition, when I asked why this is a problem, he answered that a car can have an accident even with the car, and all the cars around it, not moving. When I asked how this is physically possible, he had nothing to say. His partner tried telling me about how driving while playing with electronic devices can lead to accidents. I agreed with him, but when I asked what does that have to do with the case at hand, he also had nothing to say.

The idea wasn't to "win" a debate with them, but just to understand what the issue was.

Originally Posted by sekin67835 (Post 8568962)

Now the electronic ban law was implemented a few years ago, but i do feel like many drivers aren't aware that reading their phones during a stop light is illegal.

Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 8569145)

How does the "device" come into play here?
If you're the sort of person to hit the gas for a light that's just turned green without checking the crosswalks and intersection, then you shouldn't be driving.

It doesn't matter if you're reading a message on a phone, taking a sip of coffee of reading directions from a paper note, you do your checks to ensure it's safe to proceed before you move.